I'm basing this on knowing 1) what 3rd degree assault on a police officer represents to a judge in a district court, and 2) knowing what college football coaches try to do to save their jobs. In my case, I am quite familiar with the crap that Butch Davis at UNC pulled to unsuccessfully save his job, over, in several cases, the interests of his players who got embarrassed, suspended, and lost millions by dropping in the draft.
Let's re-cap. A notable college football player who is about to be drafted by an out-of-state employer punches a local police officer in the face off campus while three other city police officers observe the assault. The college football player resists arrest and is taken to the police station and booked. The college football player, now "the defendant," has no alibi but will probably be represented by a highly-paid attorney appointed by his agent.
The defendant is arraigned and his pre-trial hearing is scheduled after he is selected by his out-of-town employer and just after he reports for his first two weeks of work. The defendant returns to the state in which he is charged with assaulting a police officer and has a choice - 1) plead not guilty and go to trial, or 2) plead guilty and pay a fine or do whatever his attorney can negotiate with the court.
How will the judge approach this? Usually, the criminal justice system looks unfavorably on citizens who punch public safety officers. District Court judges work with the local and state police every day, seeing them in court and at any events they might attend. The defendant will be in Massachusetts next week, but the judge and the police will be back in a Lincoln, Nebraska court discussing new cases and greeting one another at work every day. My guess is the judge will look to send a message that he or she supports the local police and the very difficult and dangerous job they do.
Ten days before the hearing, the defendant's former football coach issues a statement saying the defendant is a great young adult and punching a police officer is out of character. Why would he bother to comment on a criminal case in which he has no standing? The coach is not a witness, is not the victim and was no longer the defendant's coach at the time of the assault. Why, indeed.
Isn't this the same player who started a fight with an opposing player in the Capital One Bowl and got tossed out for punching (there's that word again - what's with the punching?) an opponent in front of rows of NFL coaches and scouts?
Isn't the coach trying to signal that he runs a program populated with terrific young student athletes and this is an exception and not the rule? Isn't the coach trying to signal that this arrest is not a black eye on a program that lost its bowl game to South Carolina and had a bad recruiting year (ranked 35th in the nation behind most Big Ten schools) by University of Nebraska standards? Why bother to say a word?
